"The Democrats lost because Bobby Kennedy was dead, and there was no other peace candidate with acceptance outside of the peace movement. Humphrey , as LBJ's VP, he couldn't credibly run against his own boss's foreign policies, so the "peace" vote was lost--Even at that, Nixon, who had a "secret peace plan", nearly defeated himself, and ended up with fewer votes than he'd gotten in 1960, and was saved by third party canditate George Wallace who pulled conservative voters from the Democrats(sounds funny to say that today)--

Vietnam was the Democrats war, and the party was split because it was a disaster. This time around, it is the Republican party that is split by a war. Oddly enough, the conservative Democrats who stood by LBJ are now the conservative Republicans who now stand by Bush--and, just like then, they feel angry and alienated by their party--

If we use the 1968 election as a bellwether for this next one, the years ahead may be bleak indeed-- "

I agree with much of this. I differ in the notion that conservative Republicans back Bush. They really never have. The most that can be said is that Bush successfully divided Republicans (as nobody before had) into conservatives -- as had always been defined that way, and neo-conservatives which are, in effect, pro-war liberals. :^)